alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019399EN.01004701.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT

(Case T-225/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract - Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision - Liability)

(2019/C 399/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Camelia Manéa (Echternach, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the CdT’s decision of 29 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract, second, an order that the CdT is to reinstate her within the CdT, and, third, compensation for the material and non-material damage resulting from the loss of permanent employment and from the CdT’s decision of 12 November 2015 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Camelia Manéa to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Camelia Manéa to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
# C_2020414EN.01002502.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 August 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Gera — Germany) — MM v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-663/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/37)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC GAMES HOLDING CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                       242
<INVENTORY>                                     15,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,018
<PP&E>                                         121,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,139
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,129
<SALES>                                        109,790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,790
<CGS>                                           69,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,273
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,436
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87


</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
COMMUNITY BANK OF TRI-COUNTY
SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT
DATED AUGUST 21, 2006
AND AMENDED APRIL 13, 2007
FOR
WILLIAM J. PASENELLI
    Section 1.4 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 1.4
    
    Change in Control means a change in the ownership or effective control of the Bank,
or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the Bank, as such change is
defined in Code Section 409A and regulations thereunder.
 Section 8.3 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 8.3
    
    Plan Terminations Under Section 409A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
Section 8.2, if the Company terminates this Agreement in the following circumstances:
 (a)
    
    Within thirty (30) days before, or twelve (12) months after a Change in
Control, provided that all distributions are made no later than twelve (12) months
following such termination of the Agreement and further provided that all the Companys
arrangements which are substantially similar to the Agreement are terminated so the
Executive and all participants in the similar arrangements are required to receive all
amounts of compensation deferred under the terminated arrangements within twelve (12)
months of the termination of the arrangements;(b)
    
    Upon the Companys dissolution or with the approval of a bankruptcy court
provided that the amounts deferred under the Agreement are included in the Executives
gross income in the latest of (i) the calendar year in which the
Agreement terminates; (ii) the calendar year in which the amount is no longer
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture; or (iii) the first calendar year in
which
 1




---



##### 



the distribution is administratively practical; or(c)
    
    Upon the Companys termination of this and all other arrangements that would be
aggregated with this Agreement pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-1(c) if
the Executive participated in such arrangements (Similar Arrangements), provided that
(i) the termination and liquidation does not occur proximate to a downturn in the
financial health of the Company, (ii) all termination distributions are made no earlier
than twelve (12) months and no later than twenty-four (24) months following such
termination, and (iii) the Company does not adopt any new arrangement that would be a
Similar Arrangement for a minimum of three (3) years following the date the Company
takes all necessary action to irrevocably terminate and liquidate the Agreement;
 the Company may distribute the amount which the Company has accrued with respect to the
Companys obligations hereunder, determined as of the date of the termination of the
Agreement, to the Executive in a lump sum subject to the above terms.
 IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE
 Executive:
    
    
    
    Community Bank of Tri-County/s/ William J. Pasenelli
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ Michael L. MiddletonWilliam J. Pasenelli
    
    
    
    
    
    Title
    
    President
 2
# C_2019295EN.01002601.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Szegedi v Parliament

(Case T-135/18) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Travel expenses - Parliamentary assistance expenses - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Rights of defence - Disclosure of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact - Proportionality)

(2019/C 295/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Csanád Szegedi (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Bodó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Seyr and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 30 November 2017 relating to the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 264 196,11 unduly paid in respect of travel expenses and parliamentary assistance expenses and the related debit note of 19 December 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 30 November 2017 relating to the recovery from Mr Csanád Szegedi of the sum of EUR 264 196,11 and the related debit note of 19 December 2017 in so far as they relate to sums paid in respect of travel expenses in the sum of EUR 8 273,83; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 30 November 2017 relating to the recovery from Mr Csanád Szegedi of the sum of EUR 264 196,11 and the related debit note of 19 December 2017 in so far as they relate to sums paid in respect of travel expenses in the sum of EUR 8 273,83;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mr Szegedi and the European Parliament each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Szegedi and the European Parliament each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
# C_2019164EN.01004602.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 –Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)

(Case T-105/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE - Earlier EU word mark TIGRESS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 164/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge, Surrey, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 (Case R 1244/2017-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Charles Claire and Mr Deray.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr André Deray to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr André Deray to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALICIA TONDREAU-LEVE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4190 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 22, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. Lee Adam Cohen, of Cohen Law, P.A, Lakeland, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
19448

#### State v. Meyers

Affirmed
United S tates

Departm entof

Ag ric u ltu re

o DateCreated :Oc tob er5,2015

Tim eCreated :11:14:45AMMS T

DataS ou rc e:

Provid ed b yRequ estor

US DA,APHIS ,VS

CenterforEpid em iolog yand Anim alHealth

2150CentreAve.

FortCollins,CO 80526

H5N2

H5ic A

H5ic A,H5N2

H5ic A,H5N8

H5N1,H5N2,H5N8

H5N2,H5N8

H5N8

Coord inateS ystem :North Am eric aAlb ers Equ alAreaConic

Th esed ata,and allth einform ation c ontained th erein,h aveb een collec ted b yth eU.S .Departm ent ofAg ric u ltu re's Anim aland

PlantHealth Inspec tion S ervic e(APHIS ),orb yits cooperators on APHIS ’b eh alf,forrestric ted g overnm entpu rposes onlyand is th e

solepropertyofAPHIS .Datam ayb ed issem inated on aneed -to-knowb asis onlyand m u stb eu sed forth eirintend ed g overnm ent

pu rpose(s).Allinform ation c ontained with in th esed ataaresu b jectto requ ired Fed eralsafeg u ard s and sh allonlyb esh ared and /or

u sed c onsistentwith th eTrad eS ec rets Ac t[18U.S .C.1905],th ePrivac yActof1974,as am end ed [5U.S .C.552a],th eFreed om of

Inform ation Ac t[5U.S .C.552],th econfid entialityprovisions ofth eFood S ec u rityAc tof1985[7U.S .C.2276],S ec tion 1619ofth e

Food ,Conservation,and Energ yAc tof2008[7U.S .C.8791],and oth erapplicab leFed erallaws and im plem enting reg u lations,as

wellas with th ec onfid entialityornon-d isc losu reprovisions ofanyoth erag reem ententered into b etween APHIS and acooperator.

All HPAI Detections in Wild Birds, by Subtype, December 2014 to June 2015

0 100 200 300 400

Miles
#### Petition for writ of mandamus by Frank ENSLINGER, Petitioner.

No. A-12344.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 5, 1956.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

Now on this the fifth day of September, 1956, this matter comes on upon the petition of Frank Enslinger for writ of mandamus directed to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, ordering that casemade forma pauperis be provided him for perfecting an appeal in the case of State v. Frank Enslinger, No. 16411. In said petition, petitioner alleges that he is without funds to perfect said appeal or provide security therefor. From said petition it does not affirmatively appear that he has no property of any kind and that he has no relatives willing to assist him or that his attorney who represented him is unable to make up a transcript from memory. Brogdon v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 269, 260 P. 784; Cowley v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 479, 88 P.2d 914; Scroggins v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 388, 121 P.2d 621; 11 A.L.R.2d 615.

In light of said authorities we cannot hold that the District Court of Tulsa County abused its judicial discretion in refusing to grant the petitioner’s request for a casemade forma pauperis. In this connection, it has been repeatedly held that the determination of such a matter is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Harris v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 417, 137 P. 365, 139 P. 846; Hutchins v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 717, 167 P. 338; Hardin v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 123, 229 P. 654; Young v. State, 33 Okl.Cr. 255, 243 P. 763, 765; Brogdon v. State, supra; Lenora v. State, 51 Okl.Cr. 291, 1 P.2d 832; Hembree v. State, 53 Okl. Cr. 79, 7 P.2d 491; Reed v. State, 53 Okl. Cr. 391, 12 P.2d 551. Writ denied.
[No. 37935.

Department One.

December 30, 1965.]

#### Bernice R. Fisher *et al., Appellants,*v. Walter N. Lofgren *et al.,*Respondents.*

*Lawrence Therriault*and *McMullen, Brooke, Knapp & Grenier,*by *Robert E. Brooke,*for appellants.

*Leo A. Anderson*and *Bruce Maines,*for respondents.

*

Reported in 409 P.2d 650.

*1001Per Curiam.

— This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered in a personal injury action áfter a verdict for the defendants. The jury also found, in response to a special interrogatory, that a proximate cause of the accident was the failure of the plaintiff wife to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. (The plaintiff husband sustained no injuries.)

No exception was taken to the submission of the special interrogatory, or to the trial court’s instruction on contributory negligence,1 nor is there any contention that the evidence would not support a finding of contributory negligence.

The assignments of error all have to do with claimed trial errors which, it is urged, handicapped the plaintiffs in proving the negligence of the defendants.

• For aught we know the jury may have found the defendants to be negligent on the evidence submitted and the instructions given, but it is certain that it found the plaintiff wife to be negligent, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident which occasioned her injuries.

In the absence of any claim by the plaintiffs of willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the defendants, such a finding is conclusive of the litigation. In the present posture of this case, we have no choice but to affirm the judgment of dismissal.

1

There was an exception to instruction No. 4, the contributory negligence instruction, but not because of anything said therein and solely because of a failure “to give the reason that the defendant affirmatively owes a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff.” No exception was taken to instruction No. 3 wherein the court did instruct on the defendants’ duty to the plaintiff wife.
#### Makaneole v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd.

15234

1/4/95

Denied

77 Hawai'i 417, 886 P.2d 754
# C_2021481EN.01000401.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Banco Santander SA v European Commission

(Case C-52/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Banco Santander SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Banco Santander SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banco Santander SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68211-68212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27063]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Date and Time: Friday, November 21, 2014; 9:30 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Program Planning

 Vote on 2015 Business Meeting Calendar
 Schedule FY 2015 Briefings

[[Page 68212]]

 Discussion and Vote on Updating the USCCR Anti-Semitism Report
 Discussion on Staff Report re: St. Louis County, Missouri

III. Management and Operations

 CFC Campaign 2015
 Staff Director's Report

IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments

 Alaska
 Montana
 New Mexico
 Wyoming

V. Adjourn Meeting

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-27063 Filed 11-12-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# C_2018134EN.01003202.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/32

---

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)

(Case T-96/18)

(2018/C 134/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert W. Cabell (Renton, Washington, United States) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorro Productions, Inc. (Berkeley, California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ZORRO — EU trade mark No 5 399 787

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 1637/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the application for a declaration of partial invalidity of European Union trade mark registration No 5 399 787 for all the contested goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application for a declaration of partial invalidity of European Union trade mark registration No 5 399 787 for all the contested goods and services;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Health Certificate No. ___________

(Valid Only if USDA Veterinary Seal

Appears over the Certificate Number

ADDENDUM FOR REST STOPS / ADENDA PARA PARADAS DE DESCANSO

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CERTIFICATE TO EXPORT

BREEDING CATTLE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO

CERTIFICADO INTERNACIONAL ZOOSANITARIO PARA EXPORTAR GANADO

BOVINO LECHERO PARA REEMPLAZO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS A MÉXICO

Seal number/

Número del

Fleje

Truck or trailer

License/ 

Licencia

del camión o

trailer

Rest stop City, State/

Ciudad, Estado

de la Parada de 

Descanso

Date the

seal was

applied/

Fecha de

flejación

Printed name of

Accredited

veterinarian/Nombre

en letra de molde del

Veterinario

Acreditado

Signature of

accredited

veterinarian/Firma del

veterinario acreditado

Veterinarian

license or

accreditation

number/

Número de

licencia o

acreditación del

Veterinario